I am known for willingly watching ANY movie I haven't seen, whether it has the potential to be awful or not. To this end, I borrowed the first 3 "Kickboxer" movies from my mate. I actually found "Kickboxer 2" to be quite watchable, and an improvement over the original. Sascha Mitchell can deliver a line marginally better than Van Damme, and pretty much everyone involved with this film tries as manfully as they can to treat it with as much seriousness as possible. You get the sense that Albert Pyun could be an average director in Hollywood were he to take on better projects. I also found the fight sequences more realistic and less narcissistic than in the first one, although my friend disagrees with me. Mitchell seems less obsessed with the idea of the audience seeing him flexing his muscles than Van Damme did. I should point out that the buddy I refer to is the martial arts aficionado of the two of us, so maybe his opinions count for more than mine from an aesthetic perspective.
Yes, it is a basic fight film, but it provides what its fans want with a modicum of style. I am in no way trying to claim that this is as good from a technical standpoint as any of the other films I've rated 6, but from an entertainment perspective you'll be surprised to find it's solid, if unspectacular fare. That assessment is from a viewer whose tastes are usually a little more refined.
Yes, it is a basic fight film, but it provides what its fans want with a modicum of style. I am in no way trying to claim that this is as good from a technical standpoint as any of the other films I've rated 6, but from an entertainment perspective you'll be surprised to find it's solid, if unspectacular fare. That assessment is from a viewer whose tastes are usually a little more refined.